TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings from the office of the Second Respondent and after perusing and examining the legality thereof quash and set aside the Form No. SVLDRS-3 issued to the petitioners. (Exhibit-J) (c) to issue a writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direct the second Respondent to determine the correct amount considering the declaration filed under category "litigation' or in the alternative, to quantify the amount payable as Rs.31,86,152.40 under the "amount in arrears" category ignoring the directives contained in the CBIC circular dated 25.09.19" 2. Heard Ms. Kiran Doiphode, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Karan Adik, learned counsel for the Respondents. 3. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 4. The fulcrum of the dispute lies in the Respondent contending that the given case would be covered under the Arrears category under Section 124 (1) (c) of the Finance Act, 2019. ("Finance Act" for short) However, the Petitioner would urge that the show cause notice dated 6 January 1993 was pending befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... de novo consideration in accordance with law. 12. Pursuant to the above, the Tribunal vide an order dated 5 September 2014, for the reasons set out therein, dropped the duty demand of Rs. 7,19,997/- on the Petitioner, as the Tribunal felt that such demand was unsubstantiated. 13. The Petitioner then filed a declaration dated 11 December 2019 in Form SVLDRS-1 dated 11 December 2019 under Litigation category as per Section 124(1)(a) of the Finance Act. The same was filed in regard to the duty of Rs. 32,33,520/- (Rs. 39,53,517/- i.e. demand as per Show Cause Notice less Rs. 7,19,997/- i.e. duty dropped) claiming relief at 70% (being Rs. 22,63,464/-) under the said provision of the Finance Act. 14. The Respondent No.2 i.e. the designated authority issued form SVLDRS-2 dated 7 January 2020 to the Petitioner under the Arrears category. The estimated amount of duty payable was stated at Rs. 8,93,408/- after adjusting Rs. 10,00,000/- towards pre-deposit of duty. As per the said Form, the Petitioner was entitled to tax relief of Rs. 13,40,112/- under the Arrears category. This was followed by the Petitioner submitting form SVLDRS-2A of the same date i.e. 7 January 2020 disagreeing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ategory as per Section 124(1)(a) of the Finance Act. Thus, the tax liability of the Petitioner cannot exceed Rs.9,70,056/- (i.e. 30% of Rs. 32,33,520/- i.e. the total duty/tax demand). 20. In support of the above submission Ms. Doiphode would contend that the Petitioner had already made a pre-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- under the challans which she has placed on record, submitted by the Petitioner vide email dated 12 February 2020 to the second Respondent, i.e. designated authority. According to her, it cannot be disputed that the said amount was paid by the Petitioner as it was duly adjusted by the second Respondent in form SVLDRS-2 which was issued on 7 January 2020. It is after adjusting the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards pre-deposit made by the Petitioner that the second Respondent estimated the duty/tax demand of the Petitioner at Rs. 8,93,408/- under the form SVLDRS-2. Therefore, she would submit that it is crystal clear that such amount of pre-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- was duly paid by the Petitioner and/or adjusted by the second Respondent. In any event, such payment of pre-deposit could be verified and adjusted by the second Respondent in determining the final tax du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(c) of the Finance Act. Therefore, according to her, this judgment would squarely apply to the given case. 25. Ms. Doiphode would then rely upon another decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Morde Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2021 (50) G.S.T.L. 43 (Bom.). In this regard she would urge that the Tribunal by remanding the matter vide its order dated 30 December 2010 reverted the Petitioner back to the stage of show cause notice and thus at the stage of adjudication. Thus, if the Petitioner was at the show cause notice stage without fresh adjudication order., then, certainly, it would be eligible to file a declaration under the litigation category and would be entitled to 70% of relief of the tax dues under Section 124(1)(a) of the Finance Act. 26. In light of the above, Ms. Doiphode would urge that the Petition be allowed and made absolute. Case of the Respondents: 27. On the other hand Mr. Adik, learned counsel for the Respondents has strenuously refuted the contentions of the Petitioner to submit that the Petition is devoid of merit. Mr. Adik at the outset, would refer to the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Annurag Chaudhary, Asst. Commissioner of CGST and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the Petitioner is concerned, it is not possible for the designated committee i.e. the second Respondent to verify online the alleged tax deposited vide the TR-6 challans. The designated committee only functions, on the record readily available online or original copies of records produced before itself to settle the dues of the taxpayers. Therefore, as it is not possible to verify the alleged payment of pre-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as urged by the Petitioner, no benefit in this regard can be extended to the Petitioner. There is no proof of any payment of such pre deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- furnished by the Petitioner in these proceedings to corroborate its case. Thus, Mr. Adik would urge that the relief sought by the Petitioner are untenable and an amount of Rs. 12,93,408/- is due and payable by the Petitioner in terms of the form SVLDRS-3 issued by the second Respondent under the Arrears category, as stipulated under Section 124(1)(c) of the Finance Act. 32. Mr. Adik in light of his submissions advanced would pray that the Petition be dismissed. 33. It is in such backdrop as encapsulated above that we now proceed to note our reasoning and find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us. 37. We note that the Petitioner has relied on two decisions. One in UCN Cable Network (P) Ltd. (Supra) and other in Morde Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) We find it apposite to extract paragraph 18 of the decision in UCN Cable Network (P) Ltd. (supra) which reads as under: "18. Thus, we find that there is a clearly discernible distinction between the reliefs available under Section 124(1)(a) and those under Section 124(1)(c). This distinction is between amount of duty not yet finalized as show cause notice is pending for some reasons on one hand and the amount of duty having attained finality for the reason of no appeal having been filed before the expiry of the limitation period or an order passed in appeal having attained finality or the declarant having admitted his tax liability in the return filed on or before 30th June, 2019 and not having paid it on the other. In other words, a "litigation" category case would be one wherein the amount of duty has not been confirmed and has not attained finality and whereas an "arrears" category case would be the one where the amount of duty has been confirmed and has attained finality." 38. Apropos the above, we note the other d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. of the tax dues; (ii) the amount of duty is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues; (iii) in a return under the indirect tax enactment, wherein the declarant has indicated an amount of duty as payable but not paid it and the duty amount indicated is,- (A) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. of the tax dues; (B) amount indicated is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues; (d) where the tax dues are linked to an enquiry, investigation or audit against the declarant and the amount quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 is- (i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent. of the tax dues; (ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; (e) where the tax dues are payable on account of a voluntary disclosure by the declarant, then, no relief shall be available with respect to tax dues. (2) The relief calculated under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition that any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght to contend that there is no dispute on the over all quantum to be declared which is Rs. 32,33,520/- According to him, this case would not fall in the litigation category as no Appeal has been filed by the Petitioner for the confirmed amount of Rs. 7,93,255/- as Rs. 7,19,997/- towards the duty amount was eventually dropped. However, for the remaining amount of Rs. 15,13,252/- no Appeal was filed by the Petitioner and therefore nothing was pending. Such argument, would however, overlook the undisputed position that the Tribunal had remanded the matter for re-quantification of duty demand by its order dated 30 December 2010 by virtue of which the show cause notice remains pending as on 30 June 2019. 45. Further, the stand taken by the Respondents as canvassed by Mr Adik on the said Scheme and the provisions of Section 124 of the Finance Act, contextually, does not sound reasonable. We are afraid that such interpretation, if accepted, would render the Scheme redundant, much less unworkable. Therefore, we cannot countenance the position taken by the Respondent, which is not in consonance with the statutory scheme under Section 124 of the Finance Act coupled with the decisions of ....